USA Unilateral Military Force Is The Best Thing To Do To Prevent Immediate Nuclear Proliferation
Debate Rounds (4)
Second Round: Opening Arguments
Third Round: Rebuttals Against Opening Arguments
Fourth round: Conclusions and why you believe you have won this debate.
Hawking0820 will be arguing the CON side for the resolved of - "Is The USA Using Unilateral Military Force The Best Thing To Do To Prevent Immediate Nuclear Proliferation" with the thesis of "No, the USA using unilateral military force will not be the best thing to do to prevent immediate nuclear proliferation". Whoever accepts the PRO side will be arguing with the thesis of - "Yes, the USA using unilateral military force will be the best thing to do to prevent immediate nuclear proliferation". Please keep in mind the time to argue is set to 24 hours so please be timely with your arguments. Thank you
I affirm the resolution.
Resolved: USA Unilateral Military Force Is The Best Thing To Do To Prevent Immediate Nuclear Proliferation
Nuclear Proliferation: the spread of nuclear weapons, technology, and nuclear applicable information.
Our standard is whichever can best uphold the promotion of U.S national security wins this round.
C1: Irrational leaders
A) North Korea"s leader is irrational.
(http://www.businessinsider.com... (APR. 3, 2013)
According to an article in the Business Insider by Brett LoGiurato, political reporter for Business Insider that has degrees in newspaper, online journalism and political science, said that:
The Daily Show's Jon Stewart mocked North Korea's recent war-mongering on Tuesday, questioning whether the country would really want to get into what would amount to a "rebound war" with the United States. Last week, North Korea released photos that included a map of targets in four U.S. cities, including the bewildering Austin, Texas.
IMPACT: If North Korea were to acquire more or better nuclear weapons due proliferation, this will lead to disastrous consequences for South Korea and Japan. Because Kim Jong Un isn"t a rational leader, he would most likely launch nuclear weapons to other countries without thinking of the results it will make for his country and citizens.
B) Other countries with irrational leaders will buy nuclear weapons. (http://www.eutimes.net...)
(Jul 26th, 2012)
According to an article on EU Times:
A report has unveiled that Saudi officials are trying to strike "a secret deal" with Pakistan to buy nuclear weapons from the Asian country.
Citing the recent meeting between King Abdullah of Saudi Arabia and Pakistani Prime Minister Raja Pervez Ashraf in Jeddah, United Press International (UPI) said that "these events heightened speculation Riyadh is trying to strike a secret deal with Islamabad to acquire nuclear weapons."
IMPACT: Many countries who buy these weapons from the black market tend to be irresponsible. If they were to get nuclear weapons, it would lead to a higher risk of them engaging in a nuclear war with their rival country.
C2: Terrorists will acquire nuclear weapons.
A) Terrorists will buy these Nuclear weapons. (March 15, 2012 KENNETH C. BRILL)
An article from NYT by KENNETH C. BRILL an U.S Ambassador to the IAEA said:
At least four terrorist groups, including Al Qaeda, have demonstrated interest in using a nuclear device. These groups operate in or near states with histories of questionable nuclear security practices. Terrorists do not need to steal a nuclear weapon. It is quite possible to make an improvised nuclear device from highly enriched uranium or plutonium being used for civilian purposes. And there is a black market in such material. There have been 18 confirmed thefts or loss of weapons-usable nuclear material. In 2011, the Moldovan police broke up part of a smuggling ring attempting to sell highly enriched uranium; one member is thought to remain at large with a kilogram of this material.
IMPACT: If terrorists acquire nuclear weapons through the black market, it would result in a massive increase of death due to the nuclear weapons being spreaded to irrational leaders.
B) Terrorists can steal nuclear weapons. (Julian Borger Monday 12 April 2010 14.52 EDT) http://www.theguardian.com...
An article on The Guardian by Julian Borger an editor for the Middle East says:
Pakistan yesterday came under increased pressure over its nuclear arsenal when a Harvard study warned of "a very real possibility" that its warheads could be stolen by terrorists.
The rising concern about poorly-guarded nuclear weapons and material was the subject of an extraordinary two-day summit which began in Washington yesterday. Last night, Ukraine became the latest country to volunteer to give up its stores of highly enriched uranium (HEU), which can be used in weapons, and switch its research reactors to low-enriched uranium.
IMPACT: If nuclear weapons keep on proliferating, there is a higher possibility of terrorists acquiring them. This is important because terrorists do not care for themselves or others. They thrive on destruction and the suffrage of others. Nuclear weapons are dangerous, and so are terrorists.
Multilateral military force will be more effective to prevent nuclear proliferation.
according to Joseph S. Nye, a former US assistant secretary of defense and chairman of the US National Intelligence Council "polls show that two-thirds of Americans prefer multilateral actions to unilateral ones"
This piece of evidence suggest that even American citizens agree that multilateral military force will be more effective than unilateral. According to Joseph S Nye, unilateral military force may be effective for a country's very own survival, but for an issue like this that affects the whole world multilateralism will be the most effective.
Multilateralism helps us keep allies, if we do everything alone, it is taken as arrogance and it will only gain us more enemies. We aren't really losing anything by getting the help of others
The definition of unilateral is emphasizing or recognizing only one side of a subject.-thefreedictionary.com. But as we know nuclear proliferation is not a one sided argument. This is a global topic.
Contention 2: The United States can no longer afford to act as the world"s "policeman".
History has proved that all great empires fall when they grow too large. Prime examples of such are Rome, Persia, and the British Empire. Many could argue that the same is occurring to the United States today. The country is currently $17 trillion in debt; this figure is rising by nearly $800 billion annually. To put this vast number in perspective, each taxpayer would need to pay $150 thousand to pay off the current debt. Furthermore, our yearly deficit is 106% of GDP. It is only a matter of time before the US defaults on its obligations. All these figures are courtesy of usdebtclock.org.
Additional military action will only increase spending and ultimately widen the budget deficit. For example, the combined costs of the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan were estimated to be roughly $4 to $6 trillion dollars (A study by Harvard University). Even a short term conflicts are expensive. For example, the establishment of the no-fly zone over Libya in 2011 cost the United States over $1 billion. This was with NATO support as well (Courtesy of NPR).Imagine the costs if the US had been solely involved. Simply put, further unilateral military force by the United States would bankrupt the nation.
After WWII the United States channeled over $13 billion dollars to finance the economic
recovery of Europe, which due to inflation is equal to about $163 billion dollars in today's
money according to www.history.com. If we were to use military force, after all is done
the money that would go into funding for recovery would only add to the US"s debt.
Contention 3: It is not justified because the US is not responsible enough to act as the worlds police.
The US almost detonated an atomic bomb by accident over north Carolina in 1961 "The bomb was 260 times more powerful than the one that devastated Hiroshima in 1945, according to the Guardian"-foxnews.com
If the US is irresponsible enough to accidentally almost destroy one of its own states then, it surely should not be enforcing its military on other countries it suspects of having nuclear weapons The United States was estimated to have about 2,150 operational warheads -- weapons that are deployed or could be deployed at short notice" (CNN).
"President Obama"s efforts to curb the spread of nuclear weapons threaten to expose and derail a 40-year-old secret U.S. agreement to shield Israel"s nuclear weapons from international scrutiny" -washintontimes.com
This piece of evidence is saying that the US is helping one of its hide nuclear weapons from the scrutiny of other nations. If the US is going to be trusted to unilaterally use military force against other nations with nuclear weapons, then it cannot hold back on force against its allies if the pose a threat to other nations.
Israel is the only Middle east nation that has not signed the landmark 1979 Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty, and Rouhani says that has prevented the region from establishing a nuclear-free zone. -mauinews.com
The only country to use nuclear weapons, the US has developed warheads up to 25 megatons, which would be thousands of times more powerful than either bomb used on Japan at the end of the Second World War. Most are in the 5 to 400 kiloton range. -telegraph.co.uk The US is the only country to actually use nuclear weapons in battle, other countries have tested them in fields, but the US has actually killed millions of people with this, why should they be allowed to enforce their military against nuclear weapons? The United States even with a 17 Trillion dollar debt, bought a 80 billion dollar F-22 Raptor that has never been used even after it has been 5 years since it was bought. Not only that but the US has sent over 220 Fighter Jets and over 200 Tanks costing around 3 billion dollars that Egypt doesn't really need according to NPR.
So why would we allow the US to go in?
pie5434 forfeited this round.
C1: Multilateral military force will be more effective to prevent nuclear proliferation.
Multilateral force is not a better option compared to unilateral force in numerous ways:
If the US were to get involved multilaterally, it would take a longer time. The US must inform the UN about their proposal, and wait for other countries to decide. Time frame is vital because nuclear weapons are proliferating right now. The sooner we respond to this issue, the better.
Additionally, it would be more hassle for the US. The US would have to communicate and correlate with other countries, resulting in slow progress.
Multilateral agreement will work.
1. This is not true. For example, multilateral force isn"t working in Syria.
i. UN approval before using military force lacks widespread global agreement
By: Bruce Stokes, Director of Global Economic Attitudes at the Pew Research Center"s Global Attitudes Project
August 30, 2013
The UN Security Council failed Wednesday to reach agreement on a British-sponsored resolution authorizing "necessary measures" to protect civilians" in Syria. It was an effort to gain multilateral approval for the impending use of military force by the United States and like-minded allies against the Syrian regime of president Bashar al-Assad for its alleged use of chemical weapons against Syrian civilians.
If the UN can"t reach an agreement, they can"t use multilateral force, which means that it will not work in the first place especially when Syria had chemical weapons and chemical weapons banned many more nations. If the UN can't make a decision on something more drastic than chemical weapons, then there could be no way they can make their minds up on unilateral military force.
C2: The United States can no longer afford to act as the world"s "policeman".
The opponent talks about how we are in debt and yes I agree, we are in debt. Also with that, there is no impact in this argument.
Even at 2012, we still spend most of our money on the military and a good way to put this is: It's better to use money than lose lives, because you cannot buy lives. Its better to take preventive measures than just stand there. As I have knocked down your C1, you have no alternative at all so we would just assume MAD works but, as I have stated in my Contention 1 subpoint B irrational leaders will get these nuclear weapons. As I have stated in my definitions, immediate means now and we cannot wait for multilateral force.
C3: Contention 3: It is not justified because the US is not responsible enough to act as the worlds police.
You give evidence on how there was almost a nuclear accident in 1961. I have 2 responses to this.
1) You're evidence is clearly outdated. You stated 1961. There is a 53 year span from then and now so unless you provide more recent evidence, we cannot see to this argument in today's round.
2) This argument is irrelevant. The resolution clearly states USA unilateral military force is the best thing to do. You state evidence about nuclear weapons from the U.S. This does not clearly refute the resolution as you are not saying why the U.S military is bad you are just saying the nuclear program is bad. You only use a weak link to saying because they had one accident, they are a bad country in everything but this link can be easily broken. You cannot assume that if they made one mistake, then they cannot govern their own country. Like I said before, please provide recent evidence refuting the resolution or saying the U.S had a nuclear accident recently.
Now on to the evidence from Washington Times. It says that its hiding information about Israel and then the next evidence says they did not sign the NPT. Yes, it is true Israel did not sign the NPT, but they do have an opacity regarding its nuclear weapons program.
What I am saying is, they have their own law on what nuclear weapons they should have and their laws about nuclear weapons. So they do not have to sign the NPT. The rest of your contention 2 is also irrelevant as it talks about cost and not why the USA military force is bad. It just says they buy things that they haven't used.
Summary of these rebuttals. The whole time, the opposition's arguments do not specially say unilateral military force is bad. They try to give an alternative of multilateral force, but that takes too much time and it doesn't work. They only state that they can't do it but, we can still see now that the U.S is still the world police. Also, they talk about nuclear accidents, but first of all the evidence talks about 53 years ago which is a big span of time. Like I said before terrorists and countries like North Korea are getting nuclear weapons and if we don't stop them then, drastic things will happen.
For these reasons, I strongly urge an affirmative ballot.
You state "Even at 2012, we still spend most of our money on the military" but does this justify that we are in so much debt and cannot afford another altercation? " It's better to use money than lose lives, because you cannot buy lives." I do not believe we should bring morals into this debate. " immediate means now and we cannot wait for multilateral force." But can we really afford to have the US make mistakes such as the ones we've made before? Again, history repeats itself. Just because it may have been a couple decades ago, doesn't mean it didn't happen. I brought up that the United States has nuclear weapons and were the only ones to use them, because how are they going to be the best to prevent it, when they themselves have nuclear weapons and have used them on civilians themselves. You're stating Multilateral agreement will not work but Military intervention is without need, as mutually assured destruction and diplomacy are effective tools in controlling nuclear proliferation.
"Even when the United States felt directly threatened during the 1962 Cuban missile crisis, President Kennedy did not invoke the right of preemptive self defense. Although the risk of mass destruction was high the presidents legal arguments were carefully constrained when intercepting Soviet missiles on the seas Kennedy relied on regional peacekeeping provision of the UN charter."-latimes.com. A situation such as that of Syria cannot be compared to that of Nuclear Proliferation with an example such as that above.
Finally in conclusion, I have demonstrated that the USA using Unilateral Military Force Is NOT The Best Thing To Do To Prevent Immediate Nuclear Proliferation because they are irresponsible, and simply cannot afford the whole situation. Also, there are other ways to resolve a conflict. I does not necessarily have to be Military force. We can try diplomacy for example such as in the Cuban Missile Crisis. And if it were to escalate to where you needed Military force, something such as Nuclear Proliferation is a world matter and should not be handled by only 1 country. It's epic rhetoric, to employ the most mentally-crippling of ideological frameworks. Voters, please realize my opponent forfeited the second round to state his arguments so I was not able to complete the rest of the rounds rebutting his arguments due to this. Thank you all. Pie5434 good debate! Thank you for accepting.
(I will not be refuting any of your rebuttals to my rebuttals since that's against the debate rules)
Okay Now onto the reasons why I win today's round. Since the opposition did not really refute my whole case, saying only it is irrelevant, we may extend all of these arguments across the flow. One point I would like to stress is that, my definition of immediate is right now. The opposition comes and says that multilateral force but, like I have said before, multilateral force is too slow.
I win on my two contentions saying that there is irrational leaders and there is terrorism.
C1: Irrational leaders
North Korea, as we have seen before wants to attack South Korea and the United States. It is justified to protect your own country because what the opposition is advocating is that MAD works. Like I said before, it is better to take preventive action ( the fastest action possible) because we cannot fight back if us, the U.S gets nuked because it will take time to recover. The example of the Hiroshima bombing, when the Japanese was winning and after they got nuked, they lost.
Terrorism is a huge problem in today's society. We know many terrorists are after us, as we have seen Al Qaeda. This is the same concept. We have a right to protect our own country since we are fully aware that there are terrorists. Also to my subpoint b of my c2, I said terrorists can steal these nuclear weapons. If countries can't protect them, then the United States should and is justified to go in and protect these nuclear warheads. It's better to be safe than sorry.
Now on the the world of the affirmation and the world of the negation.
In the world of the affirmation, we see that we are taking preventive actions and we are keeping these nuclear weapons from irrational leaders and terrorists. It will also be safe and we will not be relying on this principle called MAD. Like I have stated before MAD(Mutually assured destruction) doesn't work because it assumes all leaders are rational. Unilateral force by the U.S is the most effective because of its speed, and its solvency.
In the world of the negation, we will wait a long time to get multilateral force to get approved, which infringes on immediate in the resolution. Also, we assume that the time we are waiting for multilateral force to be approved, these loose weapons like I have stated Ukraine will be safe. Also, we would be making the assumption that Mutually assured destruction will occur but, like I have stated before, that only applies to rational leaders. Also, they would be favoring money over lives as this is an important point, since we may not buy lives again, so we must preserve every life.
For these reasons, I strongly urge and affirmative ballot. Thank you.
1 votes has been placed for this debate.
Vote Placed by amik10 2 years ago
|Agreed with before the debate:||-||-||0 points|
|Agreed with after the debate:||-||-||0 points|
|Who had better conduct:||-||-||1 point|
|Had better spelling and grammar:||-||-||1 point|
|Made more convincing arguments:||-||-||3 points|
|Used the most reliable sources:||-||-||2 points|
|Total points awarded:||2||3|
Reasons for voting decision: Conduct to CON for the FF. S&G to CON. Arguments to PRO though. Since CON had no framework, i voted off PROs. For that I felt that PRO better proved that a PRO world be far better than a CON world. Thus I vote PRO. Great round!
You are not eligible to vote on this debate
This debate has been configured to only allow voters who meet the requirements set by the debaters. This debate either has an Elo score requirement or is to be voted on by a select panel of judges.